Mumbai Court March 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
B.B. Jewellers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC181
1. The Revision Application filed before the Govt. of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-9/82GC dated 14-6-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal. That on 15-9-1981, the Gold Control Officers visited the licensed premises of the appellants and verified the statutory records and the physical stock. They found the following difference between statutory records and physical stock : Having regard to the said discrepancies, the said quantity of gold was seized under a Panchnama. The statements of the partners of the firm were recorded and thereafter show cause notices were issued as to why the seized gold should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed. After the receipt of the reply and after affording personal hearing, the Deputy Collector of Customs, Gold Control, ordered confiscation of the seized gold but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 5.000/-. He also imposed a personal pena...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Genu Yeshwant Divate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR614; 1988(36)ELT410(Bom)
Kotwal, J.1. It is quite a disturbing feature that an incident that is alleged to have occurred on 9th of September 1978 was the subject matter of criminal prosecution which was decided on 7th of April 1981 on the first forum which being placed under challenge in appeal on this forum in the year 1981 is being concluded in the year 1988. In between the respondent-accused who was responsible police officer and who had put in about 40 years of service has retired in the year 1980.2. The venue is Santacruz Air Port in this metropolis and the peculiar feature is that a Sub-Inspector attached to the Central Bureau of Investigation was accosted, apprehended and ultimately prosecuted by the officers of the Customs Department. On that night, at about mid-night time, a Preventive Officer of Bombay Customs was on duty at the Arrival Section at Santacruz Air Port. A flight from Gulf countries was expected to arrive and since the situation was sensitive the officers of the customs Intelligence were...
Harish Chandra Kapoor Vs. Air India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR669
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the imposition and continuance of a decision of enforced leave upon the petitioner a Deputy Managing Director of respondent No. 1 hereinafter to be referred to as 'Air India'/'Corporation' upon a direction given by the second respondent, which is the Union of India. 2. Air India is one of the two Corporations established under section 3 of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 (AC Act). At the relevant time, the Managing Director of the Corporation was one Captain Bose and the Chairman of the Board of Directors Dr. Sidhu. Later on, Mr. Rajan Jaitley took over as the Managing Director and Dr. Sidhu's tenure came to an end with the appointment of a regular Chairman Mr. Ratan Tata. The AC Act vests the power of general superintendence, direction, management of affairs and business of the Corporation in a Board of Directors. Section 34 of this Act empowers the Central Government to give to Air India directions as to the e...
Abdul Hamid Shaikh Hassan and anr. Vs. Kashinath Ganesh Parsekar and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR663
G.F. Couto, J.1. This appeal by the driver and the proprietor of the truck involved in the accident is directed against the award dated 30th April, 1986 made by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao.2. On 23rd May, 1983, a traffic accident took place on the Margao-Verna road and a boy, aged about 22 years, came to die as a result thereof. He was riding cycle from Margao towards Verna and, when he reached Belloy of Nuvem the truck bearing the registration number MRS-9655, driven by the appellant Abdul Hamid Shaikh Hassan knocked him down.3. An application for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.4. This application was resisted by the appellants herein on the ground that the accident occurred partly due to the negligence of the deceased who, at the relevant time of the accident, was riding the cycle by one hand and was having a packet of grams in the other hand.5. The learned Presiding ...
Gaurishankar Amarchand Jalan Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC457Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal filed before the Gold Control Administrator against the order-in-original bearing No. XVII (GC) 8-81/441 dated 18-1-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (P) Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.On 28-2-1981, the officers of the Gold Control searched the Bank Locker standing in the name of the appellant and his wife Smt. Gitadevi and seized gold ornaments weighing 1309.000 gms. valued at Rs. 1,50,000/- for non-declaration by the appellant who was the partner of a firm having Gold Dealer's Licence. The investigation disclosed that the seized gold was claimed by Smt. Gitadevi as her Streedhana property and that she had made declaration alongwith the other gold belonging to her to the Gold Control Officers at Calcutta. The appellant admitted that he did not make any declaration in respect of the gold ornaments seized. He, however, stated that they belong to his wife and he admitted that the bank locker stood in the joint name o...
Guntabai Balu Barade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR663
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. Guntabai Balu Barade has filed this petition for a writ of habeas-corpus or any other appropriate direction to produce her husband Balu Chander Barade detained at Yeravada Central Prison, Pune, and that his arrest and detention be declared illegal and he be set at liberty.2. It appears that the husband of the petitioner, Balu Barade, was charged and tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sinnar, for having committed offences under section 457 read with section 380 of the Indian Penal Code in about 15 cases and under section 461 read with section 380 of the Indian Penal Code in 3 cases and under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code in one case. He pleaded guilty in all these cases and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sinnar accepted his plea of guilt and convicted said Balu for those offences. However, instead of sending said Balu to jail for suffering imprisonment the learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order under section 6(b) o...
Dinesh Kumar Uttamchand Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC126
1. As against the Order-in-Original bearing No. XXVII/8-30/Adj./79, dated 16-11-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune the two appellants herein originally filed one appeal before the Gold Control Administrator. The said appeal statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal. After the transfer the said appeal came be registered as GC(T)Bom. 30 of 82. Realising the procedural defect, the appellant Gujanan Shankar Daine filed a separate appeal and the said appeal came be registered as G 267/87-Bom.2. As these two appeals arise out of the same order and they involve common questions of law and facts they are clubbed together, heard together hence this common order. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are: On 13-2-1979 the Gold Control Officers of Pune Customs Collectorate visited the licensed premises of M/s. Anand Jewellers, Manchar. They scrutinised the statutory registers and found that both the registers were written up to 12-2-1979. T...
State Bank of India Vs. Podar Mills Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom21; 1988(2)BomCR189; [1990]69CompCas779(Bom)
H. Suresh, J.1. Two questions arise in this notice of motion - firstly, whether in view of section 8(1)(c) of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', where a textile company owns more than one textile undertaking, out of which the management of one of the undertakings vest in the Central Government, while the other undertaking/undertakings are not so vested, a receiver can be appointed in a suit filed by a creditor, in respect of the undertaking/undertakings not so vested Secondly, whether, in a suit for enforcement of any equitable mortgage, a receiver cannot be appointed on the ground that the mortgagee has no right to possession of the property so mortgaged ?2. Now, to the first question : section 8(1) and (2) of the Act, which are relevant, are as follows :'8. (1) So long as the management of the textile undertaking of textile company remains vested in the Central Government under this Act, notwithstanding anything conta...
Patni Jewellers Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT387(Bom)
ORDER1. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. It challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 8th February 1988, dispatched on 12th February, 1988 at Exhibit 'C', by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, cancelling the first petitioner M/s. Patni Jewellers' gold dealers licence. Now, against the impugned order appeal admittedly lies to the Tribunal i.e. CEGAT. If so, there is no good reason why the petitioners, it aggrieved, should not prefer appeal accordingly.2. Mr. Diwan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted, however, that the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the petitioners need not exhaust remedies under the Statute before approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to grant stay of the impugned order. Consequently, even if appeal lies and appeal is filed, the impugned order will continue to operate adversel...
Mahavir Metal Convertors and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)LC80(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT81(Bom)
1. The entire controversy raised in this petition, in my opinion, is set at naught by virtue of Notification No. 291/86-C.E., dated 12th May, 1986. The 1st petitioner is a Firm having their factory and place of business at Bassein Taluka Industrial Cooperative Estates Ltd. Bassein. The 2nd petitioner is the ex-partner of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners firm, inter alia, manufacture aluminium circles (also convert such circles into utensils) which are excisable under Traffic Item 27, but exempt from excise duty. The petitioners sought the benefit of Notification No. 43/75, dated 1st March, 1975 which was issued by the Central Government under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 granting total exemption to such manufacture of a particular gage as mentioned in the said notification. According to the petitioners they fall under the exempted category. The 3rd respondent vide his letters dated September 29, 1980 accepted that the petitioners are totally exempted from payment of any exc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »